George Zimmerman is Native?!

The racist narrative of the Left on this issue keeps running aground on the rocks of facts like this.

The left, including the writers here, are bashing Zimmerman because he is white. Never mind that they are incorrect, they are still racist for doing so.The article I posted explains how a person can be white and Hispanic. Read the key points again:The truth is, Zimmerman is both: white and Hispanic, one a racial category and the other a marker of ethnicity. ... Both are social constructions, but the former relies on skin color and ostensibly biological features, while the latter is a designation based on country of origin.This is consistent with the US Census and most polls, in which "of Hispanic descent" is an additional choice besides "white" or "black," not an alternative to them.

Your ignorance of this common classification scheme, despite the explanation in front of your face, is your problem, not mine. And obviously you can't address it with anything other than your opinion or you'd have done so already.

"Peruvian" = Native?!

So what if Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and an "Afro-Peruvian" grandfather? Peruvians come in all races just like Americans. The grandfather could've been pure white on his Peruvian side. Unless you can identify a tribe or tribes Zimmerman is descended from, your speculation that he's "Native" is worthless.

And what if this Afro-Peruvian grandfather were half black and half Native? That would make Zimmerman 1/8 Native at most. And that's what you're calling Native?!

I'm doubly surprised that you'd think I'd think a white man with a small amount of black or Native blood is anything but white. If you've foolishly forgotten all my postings on Johnny Depp, Taylor Lautner, et al., read 'em again. A person whose DNA is mostly white is white.

The main exception is when an Indian tribe chooses to enroll people who are mostly white by DNA. Was Zimmerman's great-grandparent, grandfather, or mother an acknowledged member of a Peruvian tribe? If not, you're wasting our time.And Rob, in all fairness, I can find some similarity in your inconsistent arguments. You have erroneously characterized the US legally fighting back against a major terrorist kingpin in Iraq as "killing brown people". Here, you call George Zimmerman white.There's no inconsistency here, just your ignorance of what constitutes race and ethnicity. Hispanics with mostly Native heritage are brown. Hispanics with mostly European heritage are white.

Conservatives ignore dead Iraqis

As for Iraq, don't be a dumbass. Saddam Hussein didn't attack the United States and we invaded under false pretenses--to find the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. More to the point, we killed hundreds of thousands of "brown people" while killing a "major terrorist kingpin." My characterization on that point is accurate and well-documented.Rob personally makes the error on Zimmerman: "Conservatives are predictably glad that a white man got away with killing a black boy"Your lack of concern for the innocent Muslims we've killed is sickening--but typical for conservatives who don't care about dead brown people. Ann Coulter was the first to say "Hallelujah" over Zimmerman's getting away with murder. You can read more about your racist conservative friends here:

Tea Parties Use Verdict to Further Attack Trayvon, Reproduce RacismDespite the fact that Trayvon Martin was guilty only of “walking while black,” some Tea Party leaders had already convicted 17 year-old well before the trial, rather than George Zimmerman who shot him.Joe Scarborough: Sean Hannity Using Trayvon Martin's Death 'To Gin Up His Ratings' (VIDEO)"Whatever excuse there is to say this young black man had it coming to him, that is the defense because there is no defense for shooting down a young black man in a middle class neighborhood with Skittles."Conservatives deny America's racismAnd he makes other errors too: I have talked to many conservatives about this, and not one of them cared about the race of those involved.Nope, that's your error too. Specifically, your ignorance of the concept of white privilege. White privilege lets you ignore the race in cases like this, or pretend to ignore it.

But the racism embedded in many Americans is extremely well-documented. And I've documented it many times in this blog. Yet apparently you're too dumb and white to understand what you're reading. Or too conservative and anti-science to understand how research works.And Rob, in all fairness, I can find some similarity in your inconsistent arguments. You have erroneously characterized the US legally fighting back against a major terrorist kingpin in Iraq as "killing brown people". Here, you call George Zimmerman white.

Compare the picture you chose for this post, here, of Zimmerman, to any typical picture of Saddam Hussein.

Zimmerman looks less "white" than Saddam Hussein. Yet you call him white, and call the terrorist brown.Okay, I'll take that challenge:

Zimmerman looks less "white"?! Check your eyes, buddy. As with every other point here, you lose on that point too.

"Brown" defined for dummies

Besides, brown is a label for a whole group of people. It refers to an average person in the group, not an outlier. In other words, an exception doesn't disprove the rule.

Try comparing the people I call brown to the people I call white in general and you'll see I'm right. I.e., you'll see you're stupid for wasting my time with this trivial point.

Here's a related news flash for you: Blacks have skin colors ranging from dark gray to light tan. They aren't literally black. Duhhh.And it seems odd that Zimmerman is whitewashed to the point that his 1/4 Native ancestry is whitewashed to the point that isn't mentioned on your blog about Native issues.The only odd thing here is your ignorance of my years of blogging on what makes someone an Indian. Again, it's not a small fraction of Native blood.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a shred of evidence about your claim. "Afro-Peruvian" could be 50% black, 50% white, and 0% Native by blood. Claiming that "Afro-Peruvian" means "1/4 Native ancestry" is an excellent example of the wishful thinking you mentioned. It deserves the scorn I've given it.

In short, better luck next time, friend. Try using facts rather than unsubstantiated opinions and speculation. Then I won't have to kick your conservative butt all over the map again.

8 comments:

I will address the rest later. Saddam Hussein did attack us. Even one attack on our peacekeepers was an act of war and aggression and a violation of the cease fire: Saddam ordered many hundreds of such attacks. We did not retaliate under false pretenses (many WMD have been found). The death rate after the invasion is a lot lower than under Saddam's regime: lives saved. Bush told the truth and saved lives.

Scott Ritter lied about Iraq and defended the terrorist kingpin dictator because Saddam paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. What is your excuse?

Finally, in regards to " Your lack of concern for the innocent Muslims we've killed is sickening".

1) the total is not even 200,000

2) the vast majority of those who died in the legal retaliation against two terrorist regimes were directly killed by the terrorists, or indirectly as part of their "human shield" strategy to increase casualties.

3) Based on the numbers from before these invasions, the number killed is far less than the number that would have died had you had your wish and the genocidal terrorists stayed in power. Where is your concern for these lives?

DMarks, this isn't the half of it about the ugly truth behind the concept of "white privilege."

In November 2012, a black man got elected President of the United States of America. For his second term.

President. Second term. That's twice for the top position, the highest aspiration an American could aim for. A black man. Anyone with the slightest lick of common sense would say to themselves, "You know, if a black man can get elected POTUS twice, all this talk of white privilege is just a load of male bovine droppings."

That's where common sense leads you. It also leads you to realize that, if somebody keeps claiming white privilege after the reelection of Obama, then chances are they have an agenda based on it. An agenda that's nothing good.

What if they had to admit the whole idea of white privilege is historical material and a current-events Big Lie? It would be terrible. Race-hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson would be robbed of their source of income and attention. Supremacist hate-preachers like Rev. Wright would have no soapbox to stand on. Harborers of neo-Nazi sentiments like Jamie "It's great to kill white people in this movie" Foxxx would be ostracized just like a white movie actor gushing about his part killing blacks or Jews. And a blog owner like Rob Schmidt would have to confine his posts to American Indian issues. No, we just can't have that!

After November 2012, anyone who talks of "white privilege" just outed themselves as participants in the neo-Communist agenda. The only reality about white privilege is the reality revealed about those who use that term.

Everyone knows how odd and useless the Census race categorization is. Rob lost this argument as soon as he retreated to their useless definitions and ignored someone's actual race. Which is why I chose to address this with facts.

I must say, if white privilege is still such a powerful force in America today, I wonder that you Rob, a white male, feel qualified to even comment on these new stories. Much less run a blog dedicated to Native American issues.